The NFLPA has filed a grievance vs. the NFL challenging Commissioner Goodell's authority to suspend the four players he did. More to come.

What's the NFLPA's argument?

The argument is that the new CBA, which was signed at the Hall of Fame Aug 4, has a provision in there that says the commissioner cannot levy discipline against conduct PRIOR TO THE CBA. You have the CBA Aug. 4, 2011, and then you have bounty gate WAY before. So anything before Aug. 4, this grievance says, is immune to the commissioner ruling against it.

Even if that argument fails, the NFPA argues that bountygate shouldn't be in front of Goodell. It should be in front of Ted Cottrell and Art Shell, who are designated parties to hear what goes on ON-THE-FIELD, esp. these big, violent hits.

Their strategy all along is to get this out of Goodell's control, and it appears as if they will be able to.

This is a paraphrase of Andrew Brandt, who again is on Mike and Mike right now.

*gate really needs to stop. The Watergate scandal was called "Watergate" because they broke into the Watergate Hotel. If another scandal were to happen at Watergate, would it be called Watergategate? What if the break-in had taken place at a Four Seasons? Would this be the "Bounty Seasons" scandal (actually, that name would suck less).

*gate really needs to stop. The Watergate scandal was called "Watergate" because they broke into the Watergate Hotel. If another break-in were to happen at Watergate, would it be called Watergategate? What if the break-in had taken place at a Four Seasons? Would this be the "Bounty Seasons" scandal (actually, that name would suck less).

Bounty Season sounds like a wicked awesome action movie starring this man:

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Goosemahn

The APS is strong in this one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by killxswitch

Tears for Fears is better than whatever it is you happen to be thinking about right now.

I would imagine that the NFLPA digging this up in the CBA might change the face of all the suspensions handed down. This might take some time, but if it works, we could see reduced suspensions of all players and coaches involved.

Let me just go on record as saying that I agree with all the suspensions that Goodell handed down, even with the case of Jonathon Vilma.

"On-the-field incidents". This isn't just about the fact they were playing with intent to injure. The fact they were receiving financial incentives outside their contracts to perform said acts is a major facet.

Contractual issues are not "on-the-field incidents". Guaranteed this was discussed at length and not a surprise curveball.

The union is absolutely shameful for screaming about protecting the players and play safety during the CBA agreement and then attacking punishment for players taking extra money to maim and injure intentionally.

Why is the union protecting members that were trying to harm other union members? A big reason for unions losing power has been their desire to protect the bottom feeders at the expense of all other entities involved.

When they get into negotiations with the PA Goodell will close this loophole & crush them in his standard monomaniacal mode, like Darth Vader telepathically crushed the throat of an underling who gave the wrong answer in Empire.

Maybe I'm just misinformed (haven't really been following this, just don't really care) but weren't they caught on tape still participating in these activities all of the way until their final playoff game? And Didn't that playoff game take place after the signing of the new CBA?

Outcomes should come into play in deciding whether 'harm' to the game was done by Gregg WIlliams offering to pay players for particularly vicious hits.

Intent alone in the NFL should not be a crime.

When Butkus says he wants to hit a player so hard I want his 'head to pop off', or Lawrence Taylor issues the same kind of sentiment, you don't fine them for it.

If Gregg Williams hadn't offered monetary compensation for big hits, I hope this wouldn't be a scandal.
However it ticks me off that people still talk as if the Saints were turning opponents into paraplegics on Sundays.

Why are people upset at Goddell? Why are people siding with the players involved in this bountygate? Screw 'em. Heck, it'd be better off for the Saints if Vilma was gone. He sucks.

Think about it as a defensive guy, how do you actually hit a guy without trying to hurt him? It's not possible. That's why we use pads and helmets. Every time you make a hit you're trying to injure the other player, and if you're not, then you aren't giving it enough. Only difference here is it was openly discussed in the locker room and money changed hands.